The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1887-06-27

In the person of Mr.. Green,
9. Widemann gave his version of the af-
fair, which did not materially differ from
those of the others. When Dias took hold
of Dowsett witness told him not to do it,
but denied having struck anyone. He did
not interfere with the police in any way,
but walked over TO the other side of the
street. He had nothing more to do with
the matter. He took hold of Dowsett to
put him on one side, but no one took hold
OF the policeman as far as he knew
This closed the case for the defense.
David Naheliu, police officer, was called
by the prosecution to rebut Dowsett's tes-
tlmony as to what he said at the police sta
ton on the previous occasion
Mr.. Hatch maintained that this had been
fully gone into in Robinson's evidence, and
the prosecution should have exhausted
their resources during their examination
IN chief. 1t was not competent for them
to wait till the evidence had been denied
and then bring other evidence. If the
matter had simply come up in the evidence
OF Dowsett, then a witness might be called
strictly in rebuttal.
MI. hatch was seen referring to a copy
OF the ADVERTISERS, and the Marshal re-
marked that that was not the record.
Mr.. Hatch-Do you object to my look
ing at the paper? He then referred the
Court to the part of Robinson's evidence
where it occurred.
His Honor permitted the specific words
to be rebutted
Witness testifed-Saw Dowsett CAT the
Police Station some time ago, and heard
him say something to Robinson
Mr.. Hatch objected. Let them put the
words
The Marshal-Did Dowsett say, wait
till l catch you alone some day"
WItness-He said, ''Il fix you up some
time whenever catch you" That was at
the time Rosa, Widemann and Mather
were at the Police Station.
j. NJ. Dowsett. IN explanation, said that
when they went to the Station House that
night they were not arrested The Attor-
ney General ordered Robinson to come to
the Station House. That was why they
came. The officer did not bring them.
The last witness said that he (Dowsett)
made threat tor the future. What he
did say was, IF we had known who YOU
were you might have had good licking"
The Marshal-That is not rectifying any
mistake, but giving further testimony, and
ask the Court to discard il entirely.
The Court at this stage took a short re-
cess. On reassembling, Mr. Hatch de-
sired the Marshal to state what particular
duty it was he claimed that his officers
were INSTRUCTED in by the defendants
The Marshal-If you find by the evidence
that there was some obstruction you can
answer that, and if not you can argue that
way.
Mr.. Hatch said they were not there to
banter words The defendants were
charged with obstructing the officers in
the performance of their duty, and he
wanted to know what duty the prosecution
claimed they were performing.
The Marshal said he claimed that they
assaulted the officers while performing
their duty. Mr.. Hatch might argue if he
chose that it was simply an assault.
His Honor said perhaps it would shorten
it if the Marshal would state from the evil
dence, but there was no comPGlsion.
THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL.
Mr.. Hatch, in opening his argument for
trIf1ing nature of the case and to what he
termed the heat and passion evinced
by the Marshal throughout its hearing
He thought it an extraordinary thing that
that official should have declined to make
a statement of what he claimed had been
proved. AS it was it would devolve upon
himself to wander about the evidence to
try and find out what duty it was these
officers were engaged in and were pre-
vented from carrying out. He claimed
that he had a right to have that stated. |
The charge was one of assault upon a
police officer in the discharge of his duty. |
He supposed the charge really intended
was that of attempted assault with intent
to obstruct. The charge as set out would !
not justify any conviction under the |
statute. Counsel then proceeded to anal |
we the evidence in detail which he did at
considerable length, making a prominent
point of the fact that the officers were dis |
patched from the Station for the purpose |
of quelling some disturbance in the neigh |
bOrhOod of PunchbOwl, and claiming that |
according to the evidence nothing what |
ever had occurred at the scene of the al
legged assault which could give them pre-
text to lawfully abandon that mission At
the time they accosted the defendants.
therefore, they were not IN the perform
ance of that duty, and he failed to see
what other they were engaged in. He
further contended that section 6, chapter
40, of the Civil Code, which provides for
the manner of making an arrest, had not
been complied with. But the essential
point he held to be: What was the com
mencement of the affair? And that
brought it down to a question of credi-
bility. From this he went on to areue
that it must be held that Dowsett was not
the aggressor, and as regarded the other
two there was scarcely any evidence
against them. In conclusion he urged
that the spirit eyinced by the Marshal
ought not to be ignored by the Court in
considering the case.
Marshal Kaulukou began his address by
pointing to the large amount of public in
crest taken in the case, which showed
hat 1t was not so trifing as Mr.. Hatch
considered it. Remarks had been made, {
lot only in Court but outside which I